Veronica Corningstone

Supreme Court Justice

About Veronica

Judicial Philosophy

Veronica classifies herself as a very conservative justice with a strong belief in the principle of stare decisis. Veronica's judicial philosophy proposes the idea that the United States Constitution supports certain laws being made by the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government—not by the justices and judges of the Supreme Court and federal courts. This philosophy adheres to the decision that the Constitution is a fixed document that is meant to be taken literally, and the rules of lawmaking and governance are clearly defined within its context. Veronica tends to follow traditional lines of thinking and conventional value systems. Her originalist interpretation has followed the rules that the Framers set and upheld the original intent of the Constitution.

Court Cases

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

Veronica believes that individuals should be admitted to schools and hired for jobs based on their ability. She acknowledges the fact that it is unfair to use race as a factor in the selection process. Reverse-discrimination is not a solution for racism and preferential treatment of certain races through affirmative action is wrong. Veronica's judicial philosophy would've been reflected in this case because she would've voted with the concurring opinion that the use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions is unconstitutional.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Veronica is very firm in her beliefs that human life begins at conception. She believes that abortion is the murder of a human being because an unborn baby has separate rights from those of the mother. In this specific case, Veronica's judicial philosophy would've been reflected in that she would have voted against allowing any form of abortion to be legal in this country in order to protect the lives of all unborn babies.

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Veronica believes that the death penalty is a punishment that fits the crime of murder and that it is neither 'cruel' nor 'unusual.' Executing a murderer is the appropriate punishment for taking an innocent life. Veronica's judicial philosophy would've been reflected in this case because her vote would've gone with the concurring opinion that when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed.